Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.
Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.
"This Case is Not Over": Death Row Prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal Still Fighting for his Life
Also in Rights and Liberties
Nine Reasons to Investigate War Crimes Now
Jeremy Brecher, Brendan Smith
Md. Police Infiltrated Groups Opposed to War and the Death Penalty
Matthew Rothschild
Why Karl Rove Should Go to Jail
Rep. Linda T. Sanchez
The Dark Side: Jane Mayer on How the War on Terror Turned into a War on American Ideals
Eric Umansky
"Screwed Up" and "Abused": The Interrogation of 16-Year-Old Omar Khadr
Andy Worthington
First Guantánamo Interrogation Video Released: Prisoner Moans 'Kill Me'
Suzanne Goldenberg
In a long-awaited ruling, last month the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied Pennsylvania death row prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal a new trial. The 2-3 decision came down nearly ten months after oral arguments in which judges were presented with key pieces of evidence regarding the shocking misconduct in his original trial -- most important among them the systemic racism, from jury selection to sentencing (not to mention the judge’s overheard statement that he was "going to help'em fry the nigger.") The arguments took place almost a year ago -- last May -- in a packed courtroom. Two decades after he was arrested for the shooting death of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner, this was the biggest development in Abu-Jamal's case since a federal judge discarded his death sentence (while keeping him on death row) in December 2001. The stakes on this day were high; it was as close as he had come to the possibility of a new trial.
Many who attended the hearing on May 17th came away with the impression that Abu-Jamal had a good shot. The cautious optimism of his supporters was shared by his lawyer, Robert R. Bryan. The judges had asked many questions that suggested they were open to considering much of the evidence that has thus far been dismissed, like the prosecution's deliberate removal of African Americans from the jury pool. In Bryan's opinion, the judges had been largely convinced by the arguments. "If the federal court follows the U.S. Constitution and law, we will be granted an entirely new jury trial," he speculated. "However, if the judges are affected by politics, then the outcome will be against us."
Months passed. When the ruling finally came down, on March 27th, the decision was 2 to 1: Mumia Abu-Jamal would not receive a new trial. But he would receive a new jury trial on whether the sentence should be life or death.
The obvious good news was that the Third Circuit upheld the elimination of Abu-Jamal's death sentence. The bad news: By upholding his conviction, the court condemned him to life in prison -- and that's assuming a jury does not hand down a new death sentence.
Mumia's supporters were angered and dismayed. Pam Africa, coordinator of the International Concerned Family and Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal announced a mass demonstration in Philadelphia to take place on April 19th. "We have absolutely no faith in the judicial system, but if Mumia does have a court proceeding, we will continue to mobilize to pack the courtroom and the streets in support of Mumia." The passion of Abu-Jamal's most vocal supporters is understandable given how close Mumia has come to being executed. Pennsylvania. Gov. Tom Ridge signed a death warrant for Mumia on October 13, 1999 and the years since have seen him literally fighting for his life.
Yet, Bryan disagrees that the court ruling was a total loss. In a phone interview following the decision, he called the ruling "a mixed bag." "First the fact that the court ruled favorably regarding the death penalty is good … anytime there's a victory over the death penalty, it's good." That said, "the court not granting an entirely new jury trial on the issue of innocence or guilt is bad. Obviously." Whatever the odds, he maintains that his ultimate goal is to get a new trial for Abu-Jamal. "I want him to go home to his family."
One of the reasons Bryan is so optimistic is the opinion written by the dissenting judge, Judge Thomas Ambro. Forty-one pages long, it is the single most important opinion that has been written in Abu-Jamal's case. "I have never seen as powerful a dissent as that," Bryan said. "He really took the other two judges to task." Indeed, the first line of Judge Ambrose's dissent reads: "Excluding even a single person from a jury because of race violates the Equal Protection Clause of our Constitution." On that basis alone, Abu-Jamal deserves a new trial.
See more stories tagged with: criminal justice system, racism, death penalty, batson v. kentucky, third circuit court of ap, mumia abu-jamal
Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »